Talk:Russian Armed Forces/Archive 1

budget needs adjusting
http://projects.sipri.se/milex/mex_rus_milex_02.pdf for figures for expenditure

according to the economicst russia's defence budget is second largest in the world which leads me to believe that the stated figure is wrong.

The stated Fikure is most certainly incorrect. The official budget last year was the same/more than this. This year the official is $28.4 Billion USD, however the DoD believes it's more like $100Billion Starcraftmazter 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Internal Troops
What about the Internal troops of the MVD?--68.85.27.47 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Internal Troops are under Ministry of Internal Affairs, and are not part of armed forcess (military) of Russian Federation, which are under Ministry of Defence. --DimaY2K 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * JFYI: There are also troops of Emercom, forces of FSB, etc.--jno 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest Russian Winter be merged into this page. Thoughts? Guinnog 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On reflection, Military history of the Soviet Union would be a better merge. Guinnog 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Equipment
I have created the section in the Russian Army/Russian Ground Forces the Equipment Section and the Russian Navy the Equipent. Tell me what you think about it and Ill improve it. Mathieu121 10:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone took the initiative to start working on such a section, but you included some military equipment that aren't used in the Russian Federation armed forces. I will work on removing the inaccuracies and adding things you missed throughout the day. I also plan on adding information next to most of the entries about the variant of the particular object being in service. Once again thanks for starting it out. :) --Skyler Streng 17:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the compliment. I always went to that section and there was never anything even started. So today I decided to start it. And thankyou for poiting it out and helping me. Mathieu121 10:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm trying to make sure it's as accurate as possible, and give numbers in use and a quick sentence about each item. I should have it done in a couple days. :) --Skyler Streng 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Any link to these sections? --jno 08:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Huge addition to the Russian Ground Forces article
I just added all the stuff you now see in the "Current Inventory". I have been working on it for the past week, and I strove to make it as accurate as possible. All service numbers are active service and taken from warfare.ru.

I know it looks really messy but I tried to fit as much information on one line, as I felt more than one would break the flow. I'm sure you can tell that this is my first time trying something like this. I don't think it looks too bad but I have a feeling everyone else will, so I am open to suggestions on how to improve it without removing any of the content. Hopefully it's not so bad that you guys don't even think it's worthy of being used, as I put a considerable amount of time and effort into it.

I look forward to reading what you guys think. :) --Skyler Streng 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Its really nice and well done, excellent work. Mathieu121 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :D --Skyler Streng 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

billion
Folks, the multipliers like "billion" are not international enough. Should it be fixed out? --jno 11:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A billion is 1,000,000,000. Its not 1,000,000,000,000. This is so because in order to follow scientific and mathematical progression:

1,000 is a thousand 1,000,000 is a million 1,000,000,000 is a billion 1,000,000,000,000 is a trillion

Also, think about it. You have kilo (1000). Then you have mega (1,000,000). Then you have Gega (1,000,000,000). Sorry I'm not sure if that answers ur question, or point....

Removed Cleanup Tag
A lot of work's been done on this article since March. Anyone who thinks it should be further cleaned up, feel free to put the tag back, but please say what you think needs work. Buckshot06 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Number two military power
Why is there a "dubious-discuss" tag on the quote about Russia being the number two military power in the world? The citation is good; the quote really is there and has been represented correctly. There is nothing dubious about the fact that a senior US official said that. What is the issue here? Oneforlogic (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:5228-769639.jpg
The image File:5228-769639.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian Air Force
Needs more of a discussion of an air force than some speculation about how many MiG-29s might be flyable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamital (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reform
I think we should mention the ongoing reforms in more detail. For example, see the material I added to Anatoliy Serdyukov's article. Offliner (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont get the reduction table
It says that in 2008, there was 1890 ground forces. I assume that means 1.89 million soldiers. In 2012, it says 172, a 90% reduction. Does this mean 172 000 soldiers? Jørgen88 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

'''Dear Sir/Madam, I am young Togolese guy of 29years of old.please i need a job I wished to be enlisted in the Russian Army. Please what are the requisites procedure to follow before I can be enlisted these very year. I would be much grateful if I am enlisted in it. You may contact me on victor1244@live.com Thank you Best Regards victor''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.224.57 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the wierdness above and actually answering the question, the table means unit groups not troop numbers. Essentially the idea is merging units into bigger ones under a more unified structure rather than having lots of seperate units doing their own thing. The number of troops is pretty unchanged. 86.138.50.116 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest weapon supplier? Unlikely.
The article states: "Russia is the world's top supplier of weapons, a spot it has held since 2001, accounting for around 30% of worldwide weapons sales." The only source provided for this statement says that in 2004 Russia sold most weapons to the developing world. This statement doesn't in any way confirm that Russia has been the major global supplier of weapons, not even in the only year it is referring to (as a matter of fact it rather confirms that the US have been number one). The statistics of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which is a more reliabie source anyway, state that the US have held this position for at least twenty years except for the year 2002. It's pretty much safe to say that the statement in the article is nonsense. --188.102.163.121 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Strategic Rocket Forces [Strategic Missile Troops]
This could be any date, whatever you put on the date you wrote it it would be good then, but in due time it will be outdated. -XXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.9.214 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The article claims that Russia's nuclear arsenal is second largest in the world, but a recent New York Times feature put Russia's numbers at 16,000 and had the USA coming in second with 10,000 nuclear weapons. Kazak 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Both nummbers are wrong, also Soviet /russian nuclear bombs are more powerfull because the earlier rockets weren't very accurate so the Soviets would just blast a bigger area and when accuracy came they didnt down grade the strength of the bomb for each missile.

Also Soviet/russian missiles are able to carry more mini missiles that seperate in flight and each of them hiting independent targets, other countries of course have similar kinds of missiles but the russians have more. And the biggest reason is that no way in hell does anybody except a very few people know how many nuclear weapons any country has, because those secrets will be secret forever. Deng 2005-11-29 23.45 CET


 * You're both wrong, and the NY Times is wrong. The number of strategic nuclear warheads operational is well known and fixed by START I and the new (post-NMD) agreement. NY Times just added tactical nuclear weapons as well (on missiles, torpedoes, free-fall bombs, non-conventional artillery shells etc) and came up with these numbers that no one knows where they come from. Emigrant 123


 * It doesn't matter. The U.S. is or has already stepping up their nuclear program. They are no longer destroying their nukes (like Russia) but creating MORE and LARGER nukes. Idiots no?

Listen up...the number of TOTAL nukes (tactical + stockpile) are 14k Russia, 10k USA, and the rest have jack all. Under the START III agreement, both Russia and USA will have no more than 2,500 Tactical Nukes. Currently they have 2x-3x this amount in tactical. Other nukes and nuke numbers are unknown. USA isn't looking at increasing their nuke arsenal, just replacing older ones with newer gen ones. Starcraftmazter 05:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember that an unspecified but large proportion of those thousands aren't kept at operational readiness... total figures are fairly irrelevant since at least half of US or Russian nukes thus can't be deployed in any reasonably short amount of time. I think this doesn't apply for other countries but as you say, jack all by comparison anyway. Leushenko 12:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

IISS statistics
Data published in the annual IISS reports is not ambiguous. When a Wikipedian cites specific numbers from a specific annual report those citations are either correct or not. If cited correctly, when someone else changes them, the incorrect numbers cannot be considered an "honest mistake".Федоров (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Military Budget
I've added a slab on the budget by reorganising and putting in a lot of IISS data. Comments are very welcome. Buckshot06 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The IISS and the US DoD indicates that the Russian military budget is $65 billion USD. Edrigu 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is important to note that those figures may be true for the published Military Budget but it is unlikely that they cover all that is spent on defense.Федоров (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Second largets nuclear force? I believe it has the largest but am not certain
The Soviet Union hade the Largest nuclear force on earth in what ever way you messure it, be it by nummber of nukes way of delivering them or blast power and size of them But the question is has Russia scraped enough of them to have fallen to nummber 2 No one ofcurse knows for certain but it would be very nice if anyone could give an estimate based on real facts And how do you messure what is largets is it by nummber ofnukes or how much they can blast or how likely they are to hit the target or is it a combo of diffrent figures?

Deng 2005-11-29 23.55 CET

These are figures I've seen. Russia has about 20,000 US has about 10,000 UK has about 5,000 France has about 5,000 Dudtz 2/22/06 9:13 PM EST

Slightly off-topic but the UK and France have closer to 200 each. Discussion of numbers is irrelevant anyway; Russia and the US each have more than ten times as many than the rest of the world combined; in both cases about 25% are operational with the others either in long-term storage or requiring repair, which will probably never arrive as both countries know it's not necessary. Leushenko 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is going to be a discussion of this topic there needs to be a specification of the unit of measure. It can be: numbers of nuclear warheads, numbers of nuclear delivery vehicles, yield of nuclear warheads.  The most common measure used is numbers of nuclear warheads.Федоров (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved by as uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Armed forces of the Russian Federation → Talk:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation – match article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Military budget rising
Russian defense spending will increase by 60 percent, to more than 2 trillion rubles ($66.3 million) from 1.264 trillion ($42 million) by 2013, a leading Russian business daily said on Friday. The Russian government made the relevant decision during a meeting on Thursday. The largest growth is planned for 2013, when the figure will rise by 0.5 trillion rubles ($16.6 million), Vedomosti reported. http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100730/160003543.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.64.70 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well theres this as well from Ria Novsti.

Russia plans to boost annual defense spending by 59 percent to almost 3 trillion rubles ($97 billion) in 2015, up from $61 billion in 2012, the head of the State Duma’s Defense Committee told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

“Targeted national defense spending as a percentage of GDP will amount to 3.2 percent in 2013, 3.4 percent in 2014 and 3.7 percent in 2015,” Defense Committee chairman Vladimir Komoedov is quoted as saying in the committee’s conclusion on the draft budget for 2013-2015.

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20121017/176690593.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.131.210 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Russian Federation → Russian Armed Forces – Conventional and common style of title. It already redirects here. Relisted. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Secret of success  ·  talk  13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Simpler title. Apteva (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom and WP:UCN as many of the reflinks are using the shorter name as well. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

globalfirepower.com
Thought I would bring to editors attention that User Caealn is deciding to replace a 2013 citation from the International Institute of Strategic Studies with a citation from globalfirepower.com instead. I informed Caealn on his talkpage that globalfirepower.com is unreliable and that it is inappropriate to remove an IISS citation and put a decidedly unreliable one in its place. However, he either doesn't appear to understand this or is just plain ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Kadyrovtsy be incorporated into this page?
I don't see the clear connection between the soldiers in Chechnya and that of the Russian Armed Forces. It seems likely that they are the military forces of the Republic of Chechnya, which in turn is a federal subject of Russian Federation. In the Russian Language version the Kadyrovtsy is part of the "46-й оброн ВВ МВД России" (46 separate operative brigade of internal troops of the Russian Interior Ministry). Is it true that those men are namely part of the russian army but under de facto command by Kadyrov? 霎起林野间 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Russian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111114211137/http://info-wars.org:80/2010/11/29/now-you-can-join-the-russian-foreign-legion/ to http://info-wars.org/2010/11/29/now-you-can-join-the-russian-foreign-legion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Archived link confirmed as being correct. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of original research for maps
I've removed the map of Russian military bases as being WP:OR. The depiction of disputed territories such as Crimea, etc. has been discussed time and time again on English Wikipedia. Consensus stands as maps not meeting reliably sourced and neutral as not to be used as they contravene the fundamentals of policy. The use of a map depicting the RF as including disputed territories without the appropriate use of crosshatching and differentiation in the colour (accompanied by an appropriate legend) as WP:POV WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia's defence budget 2016.
Russia's defence budget in 2016 is 49 Bil$. Please add the citiation.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/russias-military-spending-to-increase-modestly-in-2016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.187.193 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but at this point they are only draft budget estimates based on information TASS, and that this is a Wikipedia article and WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from that, your WP:CALC is incorrect. As an aside for other editors, the article is not stipulating the currency. An Anglophone reader will assume that the figures are in US dollars, not roubles/rubles. My take on this is that it should be made clear as to which currency is being depicted, although my preference would be to convert to US dollars. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

160,000 soldiers unaccounted for
If we add the total number of troops in the branches of the infobox, 160,000 soldiers are missing. Where are they?? Are the numbers for the ground forces too low? DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources for your figure (i.e., how did you WP:CALCulate that given that these can only reflect what sources say and are, therefore, only estimates in the first instance?), as well as sources accounting for them, you're welcome to add them. Otherwise, please don't use this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * like i said, I used the figures the infobox linked me too and added them together. Ground Forces - 230,000, VDV - 45,000, Navy - 130,000, Aerospace forces - 188,000, Missile Troops - 18,000 for a total of 611,000. BUT the Infobox itself states 771,000. Oddly the same source is used to reference the separate branches, yet when you add them together, 160,000 troops are unaccounted for. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. As the higher stat isn't referenced, I'll change it to the WP:CALC figure of 611,000. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * source(IISS) says 771,000. they're not know for statistical blunders. Same sources used in branches, is there a branch missing?DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know where the discrepancy lies as the CIA World Factbook supports the breakdown here, although it doesn't actually provide figures). You might want to do some research into it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting the ~150,000 personnel of the rear services (listed in the IISS publications as Command and Support). They include Russian Railway Troops, among others. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Thanks for clarifying that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Abolition of the conscription
Is it known, what are the plans to abolish it?--95.123.162.136 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for Conscription in Russia. At this point, judging by reliable sources and what they say on the subject, it's WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2340015.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221184734/https://www.politika.su/prav/minobor.html to http://www.politika.su/prav/minobor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017
I am requesting to add an added service branch to the page called Russian Special Operations Forces to the Service Branches section please since the Russian Special Operations Forces is a new branch created subordinated to the General Staff in 2009.LauriV1998 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I can see that you have been developing the article you wish to be appended, but I'm seeing some serious lack of sourcing for the article in question. I also see a lot of overlaps between the Spetsnaz article and the suggested article. I think these issues need to be sorted out before the further development of this article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

number of armed forces
we cannot use an outdated incorrect number with one source while there is a real correct current number with several sources, per consistency do you see any other case in wikipedia 83.185.80.173 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the new sources contradict the old outdated incorrect one 83.185.80.173 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * why must the old number be stuck? 83.185.80.173 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of reliable data, I'd prefer an independent reliable source to eliminate the earlier figure altogether. Aside from GlobalSecurity.org having reiterated the information found in the WP:BIASED sources (verbatim), the figures are problematic in as much as they are claims by the RF, and could well be based in propaganda rather than reality. Information from a genuinely independent source (such as IISS) should take precedence. If Wikipedia falls behind the most current figures, so be it. We're an encyclopaedic source and, as such, we are WP:NOTNEWS. Sorry, but I think it's too early to take these announcements as good coin for an article of this scope. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170405213323/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2340015.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2340015.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion to Incorporate/Update Information
To fellow editors who wish to update and/or add to the page, I thought it would be useful to draw attention to a 2017 publication by the Defense Intelligence Agency that is extremely well sourced and from a reputable non-biased source. It is available to the public as a PDF from here: http://www.dia.mil/News/Articles/Article/1232488/defense-intelligence-agency-releases-russia-military-power-assessment/ The article in particular gives some background on topics ranging from their detachment from the USSR, to 'Real Defense Expenditures', and increased focus on cyber-warfare. Bemoreinformed (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Conscription duration or age of conscription
Note the Royal Thai Armed Forces page where there is the age of conscription there, and the length of conscription here. There is clearly deviance for the data of "conscription" and I'm not sure what the correct standard is, can someone please look into this. NZVortex (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420171221/http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319023856/http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=495 to http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=495

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The section about reserve components of Russian Armed Forces
I have added the section "Military reserve and military reserve force" into the article "Russian Armed Forces". Then user S0091 have removed this section. I wrote him: "This section is based on the text of Russian Federation Federal Law of 28 March, 1998, №53-FZ "About military duty and military service". The section does not include any original research - just law quotes. The text of section had the link to the full text of aforenamed law, placed on the website pravo.gov.ru The website pravo.gov.ru is the official state system of russian legislation, administered by Russian Government. This website is the source for official publication of russian laws (russian laws enters into force after publication on this website). Thus, this website is reliable source with regard to the article about Russian Armed Forces. Unfortunately, this site has russian version only (this is not surprising taking into account the purpose of this site), but I think the information about reserve components of Russian Armed Forces is very important for english-speaking Wikipedia's visitors, and bearing in mind the absence of actual english version of russian laws in english-speaking sources I think it should be guided by official russian sources.". S0091 replied me the problem is that I've used the primary source and he suggested to start a discussion on the talk page for gaining consensus to add the content. So, please evaluate the possibility of adding aforenamed section with the link to the primary source, namely full text of Russian Federation Federal Law of 28 March, 1998, №53-FZ "About military duty and military service". Thanks! 5.129.59.116 (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit creating the section in question is here. Yes we could go through and use the same citation to support each statement, but that would lead to a violation of WP:PRIMARY. One could search the links I added for citations. Of course citations in Russian can be used. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Specifying between Vid and Rod in service branches
Wanted to get your thoughts on why not to differentiate between vid and rod in the types of service branches and why remove the logistics support branch, which although not having an English article, seems to be a quasi service like the Special Operations Forces? I took a look at the Russian Wikipedia page and they seem to make this differentiation. Garuda28 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard listing, way back when, was to list SRF, Air Defence Forces, Ground Forces, Navy, and Air Forces (eg Suvorov/Rezhin, Inside the Soviet Army. VDV and Space Forces sometimes make the cut. No others; Rear Services are not routinely listed by the Russians themselves. If you list one of the many many organisations of Directorate or Department status, the question is why not list all the others, down to the topographic department or the office that deals with military air traffic control (see Scott and Scott, Russian Military Directory, which I can send you if you like). Stick to those seven listed or their descendants, because that's based ultimately on reliable (Russian) sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having had another look at the Russian pages, stick to VKS, Ground Forces, Navy, Rorket Forces, VDV, and Special Operations Forces.
 * Thanks for the clarification! Regarding service branches (GF, AF, N) and independent troops (VDV and RVSN) do you know if the Russians make a big deal of the differences between them or is it just kind of a status thing (primary vs second-class services)? Garuda28 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a strict distinction between the three organizational levels of the Russian Armed Forces:


 * Вид вооружённых сил - Armed service. There are three armed services in the Russian Armed Forces (The Land Forces, the Aerospace Forces and the Naval Fleet). Each is responsible for the generation of forces for a specific warfare domain - on land, in the air or at sea. Each is further divided into combat branches and support services.
 * Отдельный род войск - Separate combat arm. Each arm is specialised in a specific type of warfare, but unlike the subordinated combat arms (which form parts of the three armed services) these are directly subordinated to the General Staff. These are also three - the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose, the Airborne Troops and the recently created Special Operations Forces Command. Until 2001 the MTSP were actually classified as an armed service, equal in status to the Land Forces, the Air Force, the Naval Fleet and the Air Defence Force, but were relegated to the lesser status of a separate combat arm.
 * Подчинённый род войск - Subordinated combat arm. Several examples here are the Motor Rifle Troops, which are a subordinated combat arm of the Land Forces, the Naval Infantry, which is a subordinated combat arm of the Naval Fleet, Military Airlift Aviation - under the Air Force.

Several institutions have the status of a separate combat arm, but are outside of the peacetime structure of the Russian Armed Forces: The general public order service - the Militia (Милиция) used to have the same status (as was the case in all of the Eastern European satellite states), but was demilitarised through the transformation into the Police (Полиция).
 * Border Guard Troops of the FSB.
 * Russian Guard (Росгвардия), formerly the Interior Troops - a separate combat arm under the Ministry of the Interior, were reorganised as a separate combat arm directly subordinated to the Office of the President of the Russian Federation.
 * the Federal Government Communications Agency (ФАПСИ) used to be the Government Communications Troops (Войска правительственной связи), a separate combat arm of the KGB. Around the time of the USSR's disintegration these troops were detached from the KGB into a separate troops command under the Office of the President (initially of the USSR, later of the CIS and the Russian Federation). Around 1993 the separate Government COmmunications Troops became a federal agency directly subordinated to the Office of the President. The Agency retained its military status. I am not sure of its current status, as Vladimir Putin is gradually bringing back to the FSB the services, which were deliberately detached from its predecessor - the KGB.
 * the Emergencies Reaction Ministry (МЧС) is a militarised organisation, a separate combat arm in its entirety.
 * the Railway Troops (ЖДВ) are under the dual subordination of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport (through the Russian Railways (РЖД)) in peacetime.

Just to illustrate the different organisational levels, here is the general structure of the navy (https://voinskayachast.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sostav-morskogo-flota.jpg)


 * Naval Fleet - armed service (вид вооружённых сил)
 * subordinated combat arms (подчинённье роды войск):
 * Surface forces
 * Submarine forces
 * Naval aviation (subdivided into seaborne and shore-based aviation)
 * Naval coastal troops (subdivided into marines, coastal defence mechanised units and coastal defence missile and artillery units)
 * special troops (Специальные войска). They are subdivided into combat support arms and support services.
 * combat support arms:
 * the special forces of the navy include the reconnaissance and intelligence gathering Reconnaissance Troops (Разведывательные войска, Russian equivalent to the SEALs) and the Special Forces for Defence against Underwater Diversion Units and Assets (Силы специального назначения по борьбе с ПДСС)
 * Signals Troops of the Navy (Войска связи ВМФ)
 * Radio-electronic Warfare Troops of the Navy (Войска РЭБ ВМФ)
 * Engineer Troops of the Navy (Инженерные войска ВМФ)
 * Radiological, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops of the Navy (Войска РХБЗ ВМФ)
 * support services:
 * Technical Support Services of the Navy (Службы технического обеспечения ВМФ) - naval bases, repair and overhaul facilities
 * Hydrographic Support Service of the Navy (Служба гидрографического обеспечения ВМФ) - the hydrographic ships of the navy
 * Search and Rescue Support Service of the Navy (Служба поисково-спасательного обеспечения ВМФ)
 * intelligence-gathering ships (корабли службы ОСНАЗ) - the intelligence-gathering ships are administratively part of the navy, but operate directly under the Intelligence Department of the General Staff
 * Hydro-meteorologic Support Service of the Navy (Служба гидрометеорологического обеспечения ВМФ)
 * Logistical support of the Navy (Тыл ВМФ)

Suvorov's information is accurate fir the time period it was written, but outdated today. The Soviet Armed Forces DID have five equal services, but since then the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose were downgraded and the Air Defence Force was merged into the Air Force (in 2005 if memory serves me right). Space Troops were never a separate service. From the first Soviet space launches they were part of the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose (they were called something like "strategic artillery reserve of the General Staff before their upgrade to a full armed service). In 1981 they were detached from the MTSP and became a separate arm under the General Staff. B.Velikov (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More for my own education at this point, what were the status of the Military Space Forces between 1992 and 1997 (before incorporation into the RVSN) and their establishment as the Russian Space Forces in 2001? Were they considered an independent troops branch or more akin to the Rear of the Armed Forces (some kind of joint entity that wasn’t a full or partial military branch)? Garuda28 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On July 27, 1992 they were reorganised into a separate arm - the Military Space Troops directly under the Ministry of Defence. In 1997 they were merged together with the four divisions under the Air Defence Force (one space attack detection and three anti-ballistic defence divisions) to form the 3rd Separate Army of Space Missile Defence under the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose, but this only lasted for about a year - mid-1997 to mid-1998, after which the army was trasnsfered to the Air Defence Force, more specifically to the newly organised Moscow Air Force and Air Defence District under the designation 1st Separate Air Defence Army (Special Purpose) with HQ in Balashikha. Actually I have written Air Defence Force, but I think the Moscow Air Force and Air Defence District was actually directly subordinated to the General Staff. It fused together the Air Force's 16th Air Army and the Air Defence Force's Moscow Air Defence District as a prototype for the later fusion of the Air Force and Air Defence Force en large. B.Velikov (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments . Garuda28 my information is general and not always up to date, as you can see, and you should follow Boris's guidance. Many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About the Russian Space Troops and their Soviet predecessor, I made a small mix-up, so I will explain that once again.

The absolute beginning of the Soviet strategic missile troops came on August 15, 1946 in the form of the Special Purpose Brigade of the Reserve of the Military High Command (Бригада особого назначения резерва Верховного главного командования (БОН РГК)). The brigade was based in Sonderhausen and attached to the Group of Soviet Occupation Forces in Germany. Its purpose was the reverse-engineering of captured trophy V-2 ballistic missiles (inducted into Soviet military service under the designation A-4). In 1947 the brigade relocated to Kapustin Yar (Russian for Cabbage Field :D), Astrakhan Oblast, north of the Caspian Sea. This later became the Soviet ballistic missile troops center of excellence and additionally the ballistic missile brigades of the Warsaw Pact member states also deployed to Kapustin Yar for evaluation and certification. On October 18, 1947 the brigade accomplished the first operational launch of an A-4 missile with 11 more to follow until the year's end. In 1950 the brigade test-launched the Soviet-designed R-2 ballistic missile. In 1950 the brigade split into the 22nd and the 23rd brigades and in 1952 another two missile brigades were added - the 54th and the 56th. These four brigades carried the designation Special Purpose Brigade of the Reserve of the Military High Command. In March of 1953 the four brigades received new numbers and designation. For reason of maskirovka the designation Engineer Brigade of the Reserve of the Military High COmmand (инженерная бригада РВГК) was introduced. Two more brigades were formed in 1953, one more in 1954 and three more in 1959.

The missile brigades were initially under the command of the 4th Department (Rocket Weapons) (4-е Управление (Реактивное вооружение)) of the Main Artillery Directorate (Главное артиллерийское управление (ГАУ)). In March of 1953 a new structure was formed at the 4th Department with the purpose to take over the missile brigades - Directorate of the Deputy Commander of the Artillery of the Soviet Army (in charge of missile units) (Управление заместителя командующего артиллерией Советской армии (по реактивным частям)). In March of 1955 a new position at the Ministry of Defence was introduced - Deputy Minister of Defence for Special Weaponry and Rocket Technology. The first appointee was (at the time) Marshal Of Artillery, later Chief Marshal Of Artillery Mitrofan Ivanovich Nedelin. On December 17, 1959 CMA Nedelin's Deputy Minister apparatus was transformed into the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose.

The beginning of the Soviet Space Troops came in 1955, when the Baykonur cosmodrome was established under the designation Spientific Evaluation and Test Range № 5 of the Ministry of Defence of the USSR (Научно-исследовательского испытательного полигона № 5 Министерства Обороны СССР (НИИП № 5 МО СССР)). As you see at the time it was under CMA Nedelin in his position as Deputy Minister of Defence for Special Weaponry and Rocket Technology. The space-related units and spientific establishments were not separated from the ballistic missile units and they all came under the Deputy Minister, later under the MTSP, as the space launch vehicles were in essence crewed modified ICBMs. To make things clear the US NASA has two main missions - space exploration and aviation development. The Soviet space program was part of the military from the start. The Soviet space troops are the USSR's equivalent to NASA's space exploration portfolio, but unlike the US civil agency, they were an integral part of the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose. After the Baykonur Cosmodrome another space-related formation was added in 1957, when the Command and Measurement Complex for Control of Space Vehicles (Командно-измерительный комплекс управления космическими аппаратами (КИК УКА)) was formed initially in Bolshevo, later transferred to Krasnoznamensk, Moscow Oblast. Also in 1957 the construction of a missile launch range for the testing of R-7 ICBMs started near Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast, which later became the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

In 1964, in order to bring the various space-related units and estbalisments together, the Soviet Ministry of Defence formed the Central Directorate for Space Assets of the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose (Центральное управление космических средств Ракетных войск стратегического назначения (ЦУКОС РВСН). In 1970 the Directorate was upgraded from a Central to a Main Directorate (Главное управление космических средств (ГУКОС РВСН).

In 1981 the Main Directorate was taken out of the MTSP and subordinated to the Soviet General Staff with the corresponding re-designation from ГУКОС РВСН to ГУКОС ГШ ВС СССР. In 1986 the Main Directorate for Space Assets of the Ministry of Defence was reformed into the Directorate of the Chief of Space Assets and upgraded from a directorate under the General Staff to a directorate directly subordinated to the Ministry of Defence (Управление начальника космических средств МО СССР).

After the collapse of the USSR in 1992 the Directorate of the Chief of Space Assets of the Ministry of Defence was reformed into a separate combat arm (род войск центрального подчинения) - Military Space Forces (Военно-космические силы (ВКС)). So until this moment you can speak of space troops informally, but this is the moment when they come LEGALLY into being. Also note the different designation: these are Military Space Forces (Военно-космические силы). They are only a separate arm unlike today's AEROSPACE Forces (Воздушно-космические силы), which are a whole armed service and it is important to see the distinction, because they share the same acronym - ВКС (VKS).

So we reach the year 1997. At that moment the Military Space Forces are a separate arm directly under the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. I hope you have followed, because this is a major cornerstone for the space forces and I have made an error above concerning the separate army.

In 1997 the Missile Space Defence Troops (Войска ракетно-космической обороны (Войска РКО)) come, along with the Military Space Forces, under the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose. So which are these Missile Space Defence Troops?

On March 30, 1967 a Directorate of the Chief of Anti-Missile and Anti-Space Defence (Управление командующего войсками противоракетной и противокосмической (УКВ ПРО и ПКО)) was formed under the High Command of the Air Defence Troops (Главное командование Войск ПВО) with Lieutenant-General of Artillery Yuri Votintsev.

In February 1971 the 1st Division for Warning Against Missile Attack (1-я дивизия предупреждения о ракетном нападении (1-я дивизия ПРН)) was formed with HQ in Solnechnegorsk, the 57th Separate Radiotechnical Nod in Olenegorsk, Murmansk Oblast and the 129th Separate Radiotechnical Nod in Skrunda, Latvian SSR. The 2nd Division for Space Observation (2-я дивизия разведки космического пространства (2-я дивизия РКП)) followed in July 1973 with HQ in Serpukhov-15, the 145th Center for Space Control and 1069th Command Center (both in the closed military town of Noginsk-9, east of Moscow), the 46th Separate Radiotechnical Nod in Mishelyovka, Irkutskaya Oblast and the 49th Separate Radiotechnical Nod in the closed military town of Balkhash-9, Kazakh SSR.

In 1977 the 1st Division WAMA was expanded into the 3rd Separate Army of Special Purpose for Warning Against Missile Attack (3-я отдельная армия предупреждения о ракетном нападении особого назначения (3-я ОА ПРН ОН)) and took over the 2nd Division SO. In 1978 the 9th Separate Corps for Anti-Missile Defence (9-й отдельный корпус противоракетной обороны (9-й ОК ПРО)) was added to the Directorate of the Chief of Anti-Missile and Anti-Space Defence. The Corps was originaly formed on January 22, 1962 in Moscow as the Command of the 81st Radiotechnical Center (Управления РТЦ-81, Military Unit 16451 (в/ч 16451)). The unit moved later to Pavshino in 1963. In 1965 it was transformed into Directorate of the Chief of Anti-Missile Defence Troops of the Moscow Air Defence District (Управление начальника войск ПРО московского округа ПВО), Military Unit 75555 (в/ч 75555) and later in the same year moved to Solnechnogorsk. In 1972 it was reformed as the Second Directorate of the Commander of the Anti-Missile Defence Troops of the Moscow Air Defence District (Второе управление начальника войск ПРО московского округа ПВО). In 1976 it was reformed again, transferred from the Moscow ADD directly to the High Command of the Air Defence Force (Главное командование Войск ПВО) and corespondigly the designation changed to Second Directorate of the Commander of the Anti-Missile Defence Troops (Второе управление начальника войск ПРО). Two years later in 1978 it relocated again to Akulovo, Moscow Oblast and reformed into 9th Separate Corps for Anti-Missile Defence (9-й отдельный корпус противоракетной обороны (9-й ОК ПРО)). In 1995 the HQ relocated to Sofrino-1, Pushkin District, Moscow Oblast. On October 1, 1998 the Corps was reduced into the 9th Division for Anti-Missile Defence and transfered from the Air Defence Force to the Missile Troops of Strategic Purpose. The division is still active today.

In 1965 began the formation of a Space Control System (Система контроля космического пространства (ЦККП)). HQ was constructed in the Noginsk-9 closed military town east of Moscow. On October 7 1965 the unit received the Military Unit designation 28289 (в/ч 28289). On October 1, 1966 a directive of the General Staff reformed the unit into the 45th Division for Space Control (45-я Дивизия контроля космического пространства) under the Air Defence Force. In 1988 the 45th Division SC was expanded into the 18th Separate Corps for Space Control (18-й Отдельный корпус контроля космический пространства). It is still active today as the Main Centre for Reconnaissance of Situation in Space.

In 1992 the Anti-Missile and Anti-Space Defence Troops (Войска противоракетной и противокосмической обороны) of the Air Defence Force were renamed to Missile and Space Defence Troops (Войска ракетно-космической обороны). In 1997 the Missile and Space Defence Troops and the Military Space Troops were transfered to the Missile Troops of Special Purpose. On October 1, 1998 the 3rd Separate Army for Missile Space Defence of Special Purpose (3-я Отдельная армия РКО особого назначения (3-я ОА РКО (ОН)) was reduced into the 1st Division for Early Warning Against Missile Attack (1-я Дивизию раннего предупреждения о ракетном нападении). On June 1, 2001 the Missile and Space Defence Troops and the Military Space Troops were detached from the MTSP into the separate Space Troops directly under the General Staff.

So the 3rd Separate Army for Missile Space Defence of Special Purpose (3-я отдельная армия ракетно-космической обороны особого назначения) that I have mentioned before is not the successor of the space forces, but of the anti-ballistic and anti-space forces previously under the Air Defence Force. The 15th Aerospace Forces Army of Special Purpose (15-я армия воздушно-космических сил особого назначения) active today is the successor of the space troops (except for the Baykonur Cosmodrome, which is assigned to the state-owned Roscosmos corporation).B.Velikov (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely amazing! I know very little about the topic or sources related to it, but if you have the time would you be willing to take a look at Russian Space Forces and take a stab at incorporating this history into the article? This is quite a lot! Garuda28 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot make any promises. I am extremely busy lately. I'll see what I can do over the weekend.B.Velikov (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Doubts on size
Indian Armed Forces are 2nd largest with 1.455 million active troops. US as 3rd with 1.3+ million active troops. How can Russia be 4th largest with 1.454 million? Even the same page says in another space, that the active strength is 'almost a million'. Whats the real one? 1,454,000+ is an illogical size. Any suggestions? SReader21 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

All the former divisions are still being referred to as divisions despite being turned into brigades years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Divisions_of_Russia

All such articles need to be updated and renamed. Russian military is no longer based on divisions and it didn't happen yesterday.
 * Indeed and then the new minister of defence is appointed long time ago in 2012 and some divisions are reactivated for example the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division, 19th Motor Rifle Division etc so this "Russian military is no longer based on divisions and it didn't happen yesterday", is not true. In many articles about divisions you can see when and how are reactivated, as I said at least since 2014, so some were brigades indeed but just for one short period of time before reactivated or back to division size/name. Nubia86 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

2603:7080:4E43:1B00:34A8:39EE:5923:C94D edit
The content, for example, of the Russiaa PwrIndx and GMI scores of 0.0616 and GMI 838.53 respective are source from wikipedia articles. Designated active, tanks, subs, etc likewise based on URLS armedforces.eu, nationmaster, and globalfirepower.
 * Wikipedia is not an RS. Nor am I sure the rest are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The number of reserve component's personnel should be confirmed
I have used twice Template:Citation needed in the second paragraph of the article.

1. The total number of citizens who can be used for mobilization deployment on involuntary basis in the case of wartime mobilization (мобилизационный людской ресурс). Russian version of the article estimates it at 31 million (as per 2009). I couldn't find current data.

2. As for voluntary reservists, it's difficult task to estimate the number of reserve troops. The thing is, Russian military reserve forces (мобилизационный людской резерв) are established by the Presidential Decree and the paragraph 2 of this Decree which determines the number of reserve troops is classified. The military units manned by reservists are determined by General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and this information is classified too. In 2021, the process of formation reserve military units has intensified. Here is the article by Alexander Golts, journalist and military columnist Analyzing numerous scattered reports of regional media, he believes that it involves the formation of several full-stregth corps in each military districts. But there is not precise information of general number of reservists in whole Russia. Anyway, figure of 2 million reservists, mentioned in the second paragraph of the article "Russian Armed Forces", is created out of thin air.

We need references to reliable sources to confirm the number of voluntary (мобилизационный людской резерв) and involuntary (мобилизационный людской ресурс) reserve components of Russian Armed Forces. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Military history
"Military history of the Russian Federation" redirects here but there is basically nothing about Russian military operations in this article. Nothing about Russian forces in the Georgian civil war, nothing about the Chechen or Davestan wars, nothing about Russian forces involved in Syria, nothing about the Russian-Ukraine conflict.

Ordinary Person (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

End of existence
March 2022 can be considered the end of the existence of the Russian army, when the Russian army was defeated and completely destroyed after an unsuccessful invasion of the territory of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacinieks (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as none of those are yet the case, and it is unlikely the first two will ever bee the case. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Most powerful according to who?
This https://www.statista.com/chart/20418/most-powerful-militaries/ says they are not. So all the sources being used for these grandiose claims are all years out of date. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This also does don't say the most powerful https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/ranked-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries/slidelist/51930339.cms#slideid=51930371. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Or this https://www.cnbctv18.com/photos/news/most-powerful-militaries-in-2022-us-dominates-the-world-china-is-3rd-find-out-where-india-ranks-12159362.htm. Slatersteven (talk)

So we need up-to-date RS contradicting these. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait... what? When did I write that Russia has the world's "most powerful" military? I never made that claim. I said its usually called the second-most powerful military, after that of (obviously) the United States. China comes third. Also... all of the sources you gave back my claim. So, why was I reverted? Thesickreservoir (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am trying to say that we need more up-to-date sources for many of the claims this https://www.hotcars.com/every-ballistic-missile-submarine-class-in-service-around-the-world/ does not seem to say they have the most ballistic submarines as this https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a21204892/nuclear-missile-submarines-chart/ also contradicts it (and is older). Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I updated the source. Thesickreservoir (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Global Firepower was published January and shows Russia almost the same as China (well within their margin of error I am sure) - obviously now we are in March we cannot rely on their earlier estimate, for one thing I see they include financials in their methodology. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/03/12/vladimir-putin-is-pushing-russia-into-the-past says "The poor performance of the army and air force in Ukraine has shown a surprising—to some, astonishing—lack of operational acumen. Joint operations have sputtered, equipment has performed poorly, logistics and resupply units have failed to keep up with combat forces." Chidgk1 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be quibbling over Wikipedia rules but as far as I know the person writing something needs a good cite if challenged - the onus is not on the challenger to cite the refutation. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see all this tagging because of some other page. So let me explain.....if you have sources that say otherwise pls cite them. Guess work claim that theoretically someone may have surpassed someone else is not how it works here. What sources do you have to refute the current sources. Thus far WP:BURDEN has been satisfied as Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Thus far is see no sources or evidence that the sources are not reliable. Ball is in your court....give a day or two. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the source is also used in several other Wikipedia articles, and by many of the links above, I await comments at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Chidgk1 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * wondefull your asking for input....but is there a sources that says otherwise? We have 5 differnt sources for this claim in the main article. You keep saying 2 months ago is out of date...are you n0t aware of what Russia has been upto? readme-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Make military size subject to change
Do to ongoing invasion in Ukraine, the size and scope of Russians armed forces are likely to change, and subsequent changes to armor force and manpower should reflect accordingly 🇺🇦 2603:8001:9F00:8A6C:A894:4BD7:A605:34D1 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It can be changed when reliable sources are available, no rush this is an encyclopedia not a news feed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto, when RS say there has been an effect so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Global Firepower Index and ranking
This section: "According to the annual military power rating, the Russian army ranks second, second only to the United States Army and the NATO army." is going back and forth a bit between some users and in edits like this. It uses Global Firepower Index, which does indeed rank Russia (and not the Russian Army) as second. But it was considered at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32 to be unreliable. The site's rankings has been reported on in some outlets, but there is no indication who is behind this site, how its rankings are worked out, or any objective information and analysis over whether its rankings are reliable or used in authoritative sources. Should this source be deprecated here, and probably across wikipedia, as unreliable? And should it even have an article on it at all?

And as an aside, the ip edit is problematic for other reasons, it tries to use wikipedia as a reference, it misuses the source (which is not about armies but military strength as vaguely described in terms of land, sea, air, resources, logistics, budget, etc), and makes no reference to a NATO army - a dubious concept anyway since NATO is a military alliance which draws upon the military forces of its member countries, including the US, and isn't a separate standing army. I've reverted the ip, this needs discussing here, and I'll invite more eyes on it. Spokoyni (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Global Firepower Index is an opaque data aggregator that takes user submissions. No professional staff listed. It is in no way reliable and should not be used. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
Events in 2022 can't have been discussed in 2019, so any discussion from 2019 can't be used to add material for 2022. Really trying to avoid sark. In fact as far as I can tell there was no decision of any kind about anything in 2019.

Its the RAF, not the AFRF (what the hell does that even mean?). Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

General Aleksandr Dvornikov under History
Under History is says "Within hours after Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu's signature on the UN-brokered deal to resume Ukraine’s Black Sea grain exports, Dvornikov bombed the Port of Odessa." How ever Dvornikov was removed from command On 25 June, and replaced with Colonel-General Gennady Zhidko. "Butcher of Aleppo' sacked as Vladimir Putin shakes up Russian top command again". The Telegraph. 25 June 2022. Shion-ko (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022
Revise Footnote 19 to this: Posard, Marek and Khyrstyna Holynska (21 March 2022). "Russia has a military professionalism problem, and it is costing them in Ukraine". Breaking Defense. Retrieved 25 August 2022.

Posard and Holynska are the actual authors of this cited work. Robburton67 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Done; thank you for spotting it. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

numbers
Availability and Fit for Service numbers make no sense. Same critaria, different numbers Elfguy 23:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that Availability is the number of men who could (theoretically) be conscripted and mobilised. While Fit for Service would mean the number of men who have completed their military service and could be mobilised without having to receive further training. --BadSeed 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/bgpapers/cooper20060124.pdf/download <-- This confirms my figure of $28.4Bn, please don't change.

Active troops are said to be 1,130,000. "Some 330,000 young men are brought into the army via conscription in two call-ups each year. Conscripts are supposed to serve for two years but only 9% do, according to the Defence Ministry."

This doesn´t make much sense. Aren´t the 1.13 million soldiers rather the number of the men that SHOULD be in the army, but they aren´t there. So the real number of active troops could be something like 300 000 - 400 000.

If anyone knows the real situation, please set the statistics right.


 * about 1M according to some officials (V.Zhirinovski in TV interview). --jno 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the claims make no sense, but I don't have access to the cited source so I've added another paragraph below the rather high-seeming claims of military strength giving up-to-date and more realistic information with a link to the List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel. JoshBerryman (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces now a terrorist group
A terrorist group namely, Russian Armed Forces Bushman2023 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion does not need to go on a factual page, my friend. MyNameIfItWasNotTaken (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Amar a muhamad
2002 2002 37.239.51.10 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Care you explain what this has to do wth the Russian armed forces? Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

biased source as only source
Article says: «the number of Russian soldiers killed and wounded in Ukraine was estimated at nearly 200,000.[38]»

The source is the New York Times (!) a source which has shown patently that it sides with Ukraine, its numbers are therefore not very credible. These figures can of course be mentioned but they must be balanced with another source (for instance the Russian sources...)

«The FSB's reported calculation of almost 110,000 casualties by February [2023] » https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672

Also the latest mobilization efforts (400 000 contract soldiers as part of the plan to increase the Russian Army to 1.5 million) are not reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The comment "the number of Russian soldiers killed and wounded in Ukraine was estimated at nearly 200,000.[37]" literally made we laugh. You are debasing yourself with such unnecessary comments (the New York Times is not an objective source, it is militantly pro-Kiev). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)